User talk:Sirfurboy

I have hunted out my login details (not the easiest of tasks) as I find myself doing more than wiki-gnoming lately and guess I should therefore actually log in.

I claim these edits back to early 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.159.115.41

Thanks all for the kind messages on this talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a delightful surprise! -Austronesier (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and lovely to hear from you again. :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Canada[1], with love :) You see, some things never change. –Austronesier (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. He hasn't changed! His contributions are a litany of edit wars. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appy polly lodges for my revert on that page. I misunderstood that section and thought withdrawn meant Kubrick 'ad pulled it from circulation and banned copies of it. Sammy of thee to offer me an explanation, I viddy thee now :) Stephanie921 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Thanks for stopping by. :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) May your day or nochy be a real horrorshow! (That means excellent to be clear lol: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:A_Clockwork_Orange#H)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your rationale and measured tone when discussing differences with fellow editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croeso, a diolch. Beth sydd i mi a wnelwyf a "Horeston Grange Deviation"? - ! Eebahgum (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid â phoeni a diolch am dy waith. Mae popeth yn iawn nawr. :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_3#Arupa:
[...]You are making arupa something it is not.[...] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No: you are! I've linked four more usage cases (predating Buddhism). Please don't make false accusations in future~--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your finding the word used (in the sense of formless as a descriptor) on 4 more paages here: [2]. Discussion of the issues should stay in the context of the discussion. Putting that here makes it sound like this was a personal attack on you, and you know that is not the case. It is simply demonstrable by your own words that there is no single encyclopaedic topic and the fact that the word is the antonym of rupa, form, does not demonstrate any kind of notability. I did spend quite a lot of time tracking down the missing reference for you on the page you created the redirect to. That page briefly mentions Arupa once in one word in a sub section, but as I showed, the poorly made reference was orginally to another wikipedia page, and when I tracked the reference on that other page back through the page history (as it had moved around), I eventually found a book, which I obtained and read to discover it does not mention arupa at all. So the information (one word in an article) is unsourced. That is all in the thread and represents an hour or so of my time and is the context of me saying you are making it something it is not with that redirect. Arupa means formless. That was never in doubt. But it is wrong to send a redirect there. It is just a pity so few people have commented on that discussion in context.

Full thread is here [3] and for context the AfD discussion was here [4]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you claim is demonstrable is entirely opposite the case as the rupa & Hindu & Jain articles show--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sirfurboy. Ban evasion by whom? You can e-mail me if you prefer. Bishonen | tålk 08:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This guy [5]. Location is right and absolutely classic MO. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Agree, location, aggressive edit-warring and POV (based on a very shallow and biased understanding of human genetics) match with that of the sockmaster User:Sprayitchyo and their various socks (including IPs). –Austronesier (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen - an example of his typical genetics related editing being here: [6] but in addition to those examples, his sock edit history also shows him having edit wars on various European languages pages. His Shetland dialect edits being typical for dropping in poorly sourced exaggerated claims to make debatable points and then edit warring when they are reverted. The other classic signs of his MO are the wide range of pages he edits, and the way they are small edits, usually unhelpful, and he always reverts challenged material back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Human Taxonomist, a Sprayitchyo sock, logged out it seems.[7] - see [8]. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've blocked them for a month and reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo. Thank you all. Bishonen | tålk 14:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your help. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Croydon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help on this page. Much appreciated. Titus Gold (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. It has been on my watchlist to work on this for a long time, but like much of my watchlist, I forget it is there until someone pokes it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	No hard feelings. I value your disagreement Curbon7 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the protected areas. I'll take your word for it that they can't be expanded. Some you can expand to start class but I am aware that there are a lot of duds. Try to avoid mass templating me on my talk page though! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Dr. Blofeld, thanks for that. Twinkle throws in the templates, so I will see if I can find a way around that. I agree that many of these can be expanded. I have looked at all the Ceredigion SSSIs, and where they are co-extensive with a single named feature or otherwise notable I have left them alone. I will try to expand a few that can be expanded (the Aberporth - Carreg Wylan coastal one is by a beautiful bit of coastal path, and I think there is information on the marine features so hoping that one would be easy to expand). Anyway, apologies for all the templates! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this project that Joe has invited me to. It's intended to be taylored for archaelogical articles, but I'm thinking of a similar guide for archaeogenetic articles in general. Though I'm still waiting for Tewdar to recover from his Halloween hangover before starting with it :) Austronesier (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, thanks. And I would certainly be interested in the archaeogenetics guide, which I think is long overdue. As for that reprobate, yes I enjoy his straight-talking style and clear insights. Having a bit of a discussion with someone we have both disagreed with before in another place (will leave it vague) but I recall Tewdar giving him what-for in the past. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier & Sirfurboy: thanks for the pings and humorous characterisations, although I'm actually immune to hangovers, and self-identify as a hoodlum, not a reprobate 😀. I've been a bit overwhelmed for a couple of weeks, but should be back in action in a couple of days hopefully. I'm looking forward to editing with you both again. All the best,  Tewdar  09:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I undo my PROD as you've improved the article? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries. I already removed it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's late here. I will do more tomorrow. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Having logged back into Wikipedia after a week offline, I see you've been continuing to go through Greater London area articles that mention their relevant historic county in the lead. In some cases you've removed mention of the relevant historic county altogether ([9] [10] [11] [12]) for example. In others you have removed mention of "historic county" and the article instead reads that the place was once in a county ([13] [14] for example). In others you have written that the place "was in the historic county" "until 1965" ([15] [16] [17] [18] for example).

We both know that it was my edits to the Croydon article that triggered your edits across Greater London area articles...and your edits triggered a series of edits from me across Greater London articles. Rather than us following each other around, leaving angry talk page replies/edit summaries, and changing each other's edits to achieve our preferred wording, I thought we'd be better off discussing anything historic county-related in the same place. Hopefully this will bring some calm to what has been a rather heated disagreement! PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to have the discussion here. You can find it at the London Project here. [19]. The consensus and the guidelines are quite clear and I am merely fixing pages I have found that do not conform. I am not following you around as I already made clear. I am using Google to find the errors. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say I am disappointed with your response here. Thought it was a perfectly reasonable idea to discuss your mass editing of Greater London area articles on your talk page, instead of repeating the same discussion across different pages (as you again tried to do here [20]). You are mass editing. You are the common denominator. You say the "guidelines are quite clear" but your interpretation of them quite clearly differs from mine and that of plenty of other editors. I would argue that many of your edits "do not conform". The lead wording you are mass editing across Greater London articles, the majority of which neither I, you, nor Roger 8 Roger have had anything to do with, had been stable for years until they fell within the scope of your mass edits based on Google searches. What "consensus" do you claim there actually is, by the way? Is it that historic counties were abolished? Is it that they should be mentioned in a certain way? Is it that your interpretation of the guidelines is the correct one? There has been plenty of discussion about this, but no consensus. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sirfurboy, I was pinged so I'm here. I am also here because I think you're able to argue your point and discuss the issues constructively, unlike many editors on Wikipedia. I do not want to return to the Project page you suggest above - for this topic it is stale with rigid opinions set in stone. If you are willing to discuss, but not here, my talk page is free to use. I have a simple question. You say you are removing historic counties from a place's article lead because that accords with guidelines. The guidelines are [21]. They say: The lead (see also WP:LEAD) is the text before the first heading. It should not exceed four paragraphs and should normally cover the following:

• Geographic description
• Name of settlement: if in doubt follow WP:COMMONNAME; use translated names in national languages where recognised officially or in common use.
• etc
• Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county), and a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding

To me that is absolutely clear as day. I am not passing any opinion on why, if, how, right, wrong or whatever, about those guideline, I am just seeing what they say. For the settlement articles in which you have removed the HC from the lead, the current county, GL, is different from the HC. So, please tell me, why are you saying that guidelines allow you to do remove mention of the HC? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger, I don't say I am removing historic counties. The guidelines say they should be mentioned where different from current county. Guidelines also say that leads summarise main text so I tried removing them on a couple of pages that had no such history, and ended up putting in the history in the main text instead. But no, that is not my intent. My intent is to fix a minority of little visited pages that have been edited against guidelines and an established consensus largely unnoticed. But these are content discussions, not appropriate for my user talk page.

I will contribute on your page if you wish to host discussion there, but I would suggest any user talk discussion should be meta. We spoke about workshopping an RFC, and discussion about how you would go about the discussion is appropriate, but the content discussion itself should be either on guideline talk pages or the London project pages. There is an established consensus there (and my edits are in line with it), but any consensus can be challenged. We could certainly discuss on your talk page, but even if we found agreement, any edits we made against that project consensus would meet opposition. Ultimately the discussion has to be taken to the established fora. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've contiued on the Project London talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sirfurboy🏄 for resolving this issue and getting noticeable editors banned by the Admin-board. I left WP for nearly 2 years because of the endless edit wars by this user, to force HC into the lead. WP:NOTHERE was certainly qualified by years of bold edits whose only reason was to claim HC still exist with the same importance of those estibalished in 1965. Thank you, so much! 81.98.196.96 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a courtesy note that, following your request at

Hi, you have reverted some of my recent assessments in WP Wales. Can we discuss? I may be persuaded by your opinion, but your reverts have also removed the articles from the WP Wales project in some cases rather than just disagreeing with the assessment. I've done 1000s over the past few days, and I'm sure they will not all be right (and it's subjective), but I have found there are very many Stub tags in articles that are no longer justifiable vs a Start assessment category on the Talk page. welsh (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss on the talk pages of the articles which is where content discussion should be. I only reverted a few that I have on my watchlist, but suspect that many of those 1000s you did probably are stub class too, if those were anything to judge by. Let's just look at Arun Midha. That page has 4 sentences, which is only one more than when it was created in 2010. There is very little there to justify the notability of the subject, and certainly nothing very much about him. The addition of one sentence is certainly not enough to justify moving from stub to start class, but let's look at the quality scale being used, which is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale. We have examples of stub and start class articles. A stub class article is here:[22] - notice that is a touch fuller than Arun Midha's page! (or indeed this version. See below that the quality scale examples seem confused[23] - still fuller though). So then, let's look at an example of a start class article, which is here: [24]. There is an error on the quality scale page, btw, where it says "as of March 2019", it links to May 2008, which is what it used to say until March 2019. If it is March 2019, the page is much fuller, so let's go with May 2008, as here. The difference is significant. Not only is this longer, it now has a lead too. It tells us about the subject and about his life, sets him in a context and is heavily linked to other information. It could do with more, but notability is well established, and it is clear who the subject is and we have a short potted history of his life (Arun Midha's is missing quite a lot of that btw). Simply labelling a page as start class when it has seen no improvement in over a decade is not really helpful. We can talk specifics on the talk pages. I have no problem with you putting back the WP Wales assessment - it was only my intention to revert back in the stub class into pages that are clearly stubs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your argument. And my treatment of Arun Midha was challengeable as it likely is missing significant content. Take Alys Williams (singer) as another example. My thinking was:

• The article has basic structure: an infobox, categories, an image, references, categories, an intro para and some content.
• Sure it may not be complete (who knows - it's a living person), but (in my mind) it's a Start, length not being the ultimate decider. (I don't see the Stub template as a flag to editors that improvement is needed, but rather than the article is at a starting point but inadequate.)
• I am assessing WP Wales. Should it be in the Project? I judge yes. I judge Start assessment and copy that to the other project assessments on the Talk page.
• Given I've judged it as a Start article, I remove the Stub template from the article space.
• I've not looked at the edit history, as I'm assessing what I see in front of me today.

I will respect your reverts and maybe reinstate the WP Wales assessments. I value discussing the general point about when/how articles transition from Stub (inadequate) to Start (adequate). I am aware of the Quality Scale documentation - I have never relied on the examples but rather refer to the Basic and More Detailed Criteria definitions.

I have more I could share about moving articles from Stub to Start when it looks like little more information is available to avoid perpetual Stub status. I would welcome further discussion before you revert any more of my edits if you feel that necessary. welsh (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sirfurboy, just for transparency, I have made additions of my text that previously featured in "Welsh dragon" to Carnyx and European dragon. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Thanks, I will take a look. On those others, Moel Hebog is a mountain near Beddgelert, so perhaps you mean an artefact found there? (Presumably the shield). The Nanteos Cup has a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch, thanks. :) Also thanks for your input elsewhere that potentially breaks a deadlock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V (Vlang) (Wukuendo) 09:29, March 13 2023 (UTC)

I presume you mean

Draft:V_(programming_language). Clearly that is a draft and not in mainspace, so it is not a page of its own. Also, please used the article talk page where all editors can see and join in the discussion. That would be: Talk:List of programming languages by type. Finally, please stop edit warring and await consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I happen to look at this page again, and have found a number of languages which are included on List of programming languages by type that don't have their own wikipedia page or meet the previously claimed criteria. Please refer to the Talk:List of programming languages by type.Wukuendo (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now they are cleaned up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I probably butchered that! Where about in Wales are you based/from? I'm an expat Scot in Ceredigion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you have it spot on, and yes it is! :) I'm in Aberystwyth, so also Ceredigion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live down by the castle... will have to meet up for a pint. Ship and Castle? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a scary thought. Actually meeting someone I met online! :) Thanks for the invitation, although I am not really a pub person. I am more often found walking alone in Elenydd! Interesting though - being that close, I think some kind of meet up will inevitably be called for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making confrontational edits and seem to be targeting any proposals I make. There is no real logic behind keeping

Your insertion of a second requested move discussion on that page, and placing it above the one I had opened was disruptive editing. As for an agenda, one might look at your 74 bold page moves so far this year, especially those targeting anything that puts the words England and Wales together, and wonder which editor here has the agenda. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before, bold moves are allowed if not likely to be controversial. I don't think it's constructive to look into other users editing history. I have been attempting to update many out of date groupings for Wales related articles, of course. In future, I welcome a comment on my talk page and more constructive and co-ordinated editing. This is something I can improve upon too. We have managed to make vast improvements working together on some pages, which I hope we can continue. Titus Gold (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I counted your page moves this year because I am frankly astounded that you have conducted hundreds of bold page moves, and not a single RM. You continue to make them despite an editor bringing this to your talk page just a couple of weeks ago,[25]. You agreed on that talk page to bear the need for discussion in mind but you continue to make moves without them. It is 74 this year (and we are only in March), but I didn't count further back. This year is not unusual. On that same talk page link, you see me asking (in another context) to slow down and allow for discussion and consensus to emerge. You are in a great hurry, and again just this week, a different editor pointed out that you make big changes and move on, leaving half a job. In your wake people have to pick up the pieces. This particular move discussion is a time sink that is distracting me from cleaning up history pages where you have (as you do) simply copy and pasted text from one page to another so that we say the same thing in lots of places. Many words but no new information, and inevitable inconsistency creeping in. And regarding the bold moves, examples of the clean up in your wake include this RM undoing one of your previous bold moves that was not spotted at the time: Talk:Britains (toy brand)#Requested move 23 March 2023. This happens a lot. So again, please slow down. Not everyone edits Wikipedia every hour of every day. Rather than mess up many pages, why not concentrate on improving a few? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed I've nominated

Thanks for the heads up, I don't oppose it. I'll save the information I would copy to the more appropriate articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ethnicity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Both of you are edit warring and need to discuss on the talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: I fail to see how reverting this entirely rationale-free revert[26] (which is in no way related to the disputed passage) constitutes edit warring. Restoring the status quo ante is about restoring the pre-dispute version of the contested part, not about brushing aside unrelated edits without an explanation as if they were vandalism. –Austronesier (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:3RR. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Blaze Wolf: Please follow then and scrutinize the edit history. It was me who had a content dispute (admittedly bordering on edit warring) with the other editor about the addition of one sentence. @Sirfurboy then removed the passage contested by me, accompanied by a lengthy explanation in the talk page. Consider this his first revert. Subsequently, @Sirfurboy made two edits entirely unrelated to the content dispute. After that, @Chafique restored an older version of the page[27], thus reverting in full four edits unrelated to the content dispute without any substantial rationale. Then @Sirfurboy made his second(!) revert. IMHO, reverting unexplained reverts does not constitute edit-warring. –Austronesier (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DTTR

. I have made 2 recent edits on that page so worries about 3RR seem rather premature (and unnecessary). The other user on the other hand, has made the following 7 reverts, the last of them being after you dropped this warning on my page.

[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] and [34].

I note that you did not bother drop a warning on his page, but berated me about taking this to talk; yet I had done so, at length: [35]. I made a point in that talk message that his reassertion of the material in the lead should not be restored per

WP:ONUS. I did make one error though. I read this sixth revert of his on my phone while on a bus: [36] and thought it reverted in the challenged material he had already reverted in 5 times. It did not, although it did contain a retaliatory and unexplained revert of some unrelated cleanup. If I had read that more carefully I would not have reverted that one, so I apologise for that. As I say, I was on a bus reading on a phone (which is not my usual editing mode). Despite that, I can't say I am impressed by the above template being landed on my page, whilst letting off someone who has reverted in challenged material 5 times (challenged by two different editors, each with full talk page rationales). I think you have misread that situation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sirfurboy: I didn't warn them on their talk page because I assumed they had already been warned by one of you 2, otherwise I would have. You are correct that I misinterpreted the edit history because it was reverts back and forth. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Purley, London you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Purley, London for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an editing war and would appreciate your guidance and opinion. Please see the discussion on the talk page regarding cannabis under the heading personal life. I removed a statement after concern about it was raised and explained the reasons. The person who wrote the statement put the reference back in minutes later. If you feel I should have left the statement I will leave the reinserted statement about using cannabis when younger in. If you think it is something that might be an issue, could you please help me avoid a war. I did read one of the messages on this page that said it's possible to post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Where and how do I do this? Kiwatts (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go take a look. People reverting their challenged stuff back in is a constant problem, and we can refer them to

WP:BRD to try to establish a consensus, but the best thing to remember is that there is no hurry - don't be tempted to constantly revert. A consensus eventually prevails. Using talk pages, a good hint is to try to be brief. State your case and try not to answer every message. Others will join a conversation more easily if they don't have a large volume of comments to read through. As for the edit itself, I will have comment there, but we can say bad or controversial things about the subject, but only if good secondary sources do. If the sources don't, then neither do we. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You are incorrect in your edit re Buckinghamshire and the 12 plus. It was called the 12 plus in Buckinghamshire from the 1960's until the 1990's and the Hansard link was the discussion in Parliament re changing the 12 plus to the 11 plus in 1995/1996. (Mabbs001 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)) Mabbs001 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. When you start it, please post a source that demonstrate (1) that it was called that at that time and (2) that it was only Buckinghamshire that did so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise - and also I wasn't meaning to discount the need for further investigation. Just that there could be other explanations too. Although - I'm not entirely sure what the practical options are for investigating it further are. Btw, thanks and well done for biting the bullet and opening that thread. It's crossed my mind to do it a few times, but successfully getting across

Thanks, yes. Its probably not a big deal about the investigation anyway. You are right though, other explanations are available :) Thanks for the support and for stopping by. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William Street Bird. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note of thanks for bringing this to ANI. That forum can be a challenging place, and you have done myself, other editors and the Wales pages a considerable service. Hopefully, a period away from the Welsh area will enable TG to reflect, and begin to understand why their editing was of such concern to a wide range of editors. At least, one can live in hope. KJP1 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and for stopping by. And yes, if Titus Gold is reading here, I would reiterate what I said in the ANI: demonstrating an ability to edit collaboratively with a neutral point of view over a period is all that is required, and then I would be among the first to argue for a lifting of the ban. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing. Thanks for pulling things together to raise the issue formally. It needed to happen, judging from the huge animosity expressed from such a broad range of editors. Such a shame the small number of useful and constructive edits were dwarfed by the problematic ones. Amser i fynd ymlaen. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it is a shame. Maybe that can change. Diolch. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversal of my edit just now, I am Irish, have lived in England, (primarily London), for the past 49 years. I've even taught English for a time. My favourite poet is Dylan Thomas, (for his lyricism), and my first my first wife was Welsh, ergo you can be certain I know British English, including cockney, as spoken in the four countries of the realm. Nobody in Britain with any reasonable education says "had got"; it's either "got" or "had gotten". I note Google attributes "gotten" to North American English, but look it up in the Cambridge or Oxford dictionaries and you'll see I'm right. Mark^Dask 14:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content discussions should really be on the article talk page, but as this is about grammar rather than content, OK, I will answer. No, gotten is not the standard past participle in modern English, but dialect is a continuum and guides may be overly prescriptive. E.g. grammarly [37] states it is got in the UK - but you hear variations all the time in our globalised world. You are right the the OED lists usages of "had gotten", e.g.:

1653 H. Holcroft tr. Procopius War with Vandals ii. 46 in tr. Procopius Hist. Warres Justinian Maximinus..had gotten many of those mutiners with a design to usurp.

, but look at the dates on these. None of these are modern except one that is from an American source. So yes, it was correct, but is it considered correct now? Well Fowler tells me (and I checked this out before reversing your edit):

Some of the more significant differences are due to uses that disappeared in BrE but survived in AmE (such as the use of gotten as a past participle of get, and the use of theater and other spellings in -er)

- that from Pocket Fowler, Second edition, page 42. Also page 45. And indeed page 308 which says:

gotten. 1 Few uses mark out the Americanness of a person more readily than their natural use of got and gotten as alternative past participles of get. (These uses are also spreading to Australia and New Zealand, as some of the examples given below will show.) Gotten is no longer used in Britain (except in ill- gotten), although it was once in regular use.

I have an older Fowler somewhere I could check, but there is a simple solution, which is to recast the sentence. "he had become estranged..." or similar. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Using the information you provided in your corrected edit of mine, on the 11th. July, at 06:59, of my citing Lewisham as Edward Lanchesters's place of birth, (which I, in my turn, took from his page because it was stated by someone unknown to me), I've now put your provided information on Lanchesters's own page, and cited you in the Edit Summary as the information's provider). Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for letting me know. Happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{

Thanks for that. I don't intend to nominate for deletion at this time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sirfurboy. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here . Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am trying to add some useful clues for the decryption of Linear-A using Dolkos' work. I used external links for the pictures of a pin and a ring which i describe specificaly (museum item number etc.) Was it the only error ? I need you to please specify what made you delete my additions so i fix them and do it properly. Thank you. 109.242.96.37 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. There were a few issues there, but worth having a chat about it on the talk page. I'll go and start a discussion there. You are welcome to contribute. Please note that you can access your edit from the page history here: [38] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You moved text added by @

It is a good question. It may be

WP:UNDUE in flag of Wales, and if you think so, feel free to just revert it from that article. I would be somewhat in agreement and would certainly not edit war to put it in. If you think it belongs in Welsh Nationalism, you could also bold move it there, and I would be supportive of that. No idea what the original editor will think - but I'm not trying to foist content onto a page where it doesn't belong. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! I won't do anything immediately - it would be good to hear what Hogyncymru (already pinged) thinks. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, I know we are all busy, so please don't take this the wrong way. It's not referring to just you, but what had been going on previously. You have also given me (and others) lots of guidance, so you have my full respect. By the way, really don't like to be forced into the edit battle on V, because want to look at other programming language pages that are in draft.

Yet, another aspect about this issue is the continous visible errors left on the article. Seeing them just left there, also pulls me in, as belive how an article looks (any article) is important too. I think what was done were just editing mistakes, but it has happened so many times, I'm really not sure at this point. Weird spacing, visible formatting problems, inconsistent or conflicting information or odd wording being shown, misspellings, tags, etc... It gives the impression that those who might be "opposed" to it or at least someone else's version of it, are so hasty to revert or tear down the work of others, that they don't care about the state or quality in which the article is left in. Just saying, please look at this aspect of the debate too. I'm trying to leave at least a presentable article, that the public can read. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Wukuendo (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Horst_Wessel".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that, but I am not involved in that dispute. I have never (to my knowledge) edited that page. I did read the sources earlier though, as well as the dispute history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You became involved somewhat obliquely, and this template doesn't say it's reserved exclusive for those directly involved. Apologies if this isn't how it's meant to be used though, I figured third-party opinions would be welcome. Feel free to ignore. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am watching it. I'll probably say something at some point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I hadn't sen a ref cited like that before in all my years here. Can you bring up another example? I'm not doubting it in any way just it'd be very useful for at least a few articles. Would the rp template also work in the context of chapters or is there a separate one there for such? Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, you can use it for chapters using the "at" parameter. Take a look at Template:Rp for more details. It can also be done as a parameter in Template:R. You can see it in use on, for instance, Welsh Dragon. I could bring up many other examples. But it is under used. The use of a colon before a page number in in-text citations is one of two ways this is done in academic referencing. See for instance [39] or [40] as just two guides. So it is a perfectly normal way to describe page numbers in a reference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DankJae 09:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GPL

As mentioned in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grsecurity : Could you add the non-compliance with the GPL2 and the lawsuit section to one of the GPL articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.196.239 (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 31 December 2023 Aoidh talk contribs blocked 24.186.196.239 talk with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)

I'll pass, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penparcau

Shwmae! I've reverted and changed slightly the IPA for Penparcau to reflect the Standard Welsh pronunciation (as opposed to colloquial pronunciation). However, I am not at all dogmatic about this, and the colloquial pronuncuation is very common, so I think one could argue both ways. Either way, I'm happy for it to be whatever the consensus is :)

The only one I'd not really give weight is the less common Anglicized 'pen-park-ee' pronunciation.

Diolch, a dymuniadau gorau 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:859:8379:EBEB:EF99 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch, thanks. I'll leave what you put back as you removed the /m/ which I disagreed with. It would need a source for the /m/. I am not sure I have ever heard it pronounced that way. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'm' tends to intrude in Welsh (when spoken) where 'n' comes before 'p' (compare 'penblwydd hapus', which is often realised as 'pemblwydd hapus' when spoken quickly). However, I agree entirely with you after considering it further that it doesn't warrant inclusion, as it is not the standard pronunciation, but a more colloquial one. And if we included one colloquial pronunciation, the number would soon increase to an unwieldy degree! 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:859:8379:EBEB:EF99 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similars

Just asking and speculating, but do the sources comments (aside ours) at Talk:Snowdonia#Request to rename page to Welsh name Eryri being the dominant., and Talk:Brecon Beacons National Park#Bannau Brycheiniog name look similar? I get the impression, although not concrete in such accusation with such weak evidence, and not willing to escalate it from my side. But find it odd for a new single-edit editor to just have it suddenly prepared. Could indeed be someone new, but still odd. Not encouraging anything further unless you wish, nor wish for it to be seen as censoring the other side.

Also while we're on the topic, still not forgotten the bunch of students? all appearing at the same time at teaching of Welsh history, then completely disappearing within a few days of each other. But could be legitimate but still odd. Ofc, they do not seem to have caused any disruption afterwards. DankJae 13:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought the history ones can just be three students working together in real life at the same school. DankJae 13:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on these. Definitely worth keeping in mind, but as you say, there could be perfectly good explanations, and we don't want to chase new and enthusiastic editors away. I expect I would take a harder look if there were any disruption though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

Hello again! I was wondering if you had the time, if you could take a look at our conversation & consensus to see if i closed everything correctly per the Wikipedia rules. Thank you! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all looks fine. You could have added "withdrawn by nom." in the rationale, but that all seems pretty clear so it is not necessary. If you prefer, you can withdraw a nomination by simply striking through the nom. statement and an admin will close for you, but you saved them some work there. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information & tips. I appreciate the help! Here’s a Toblerone!

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lerner

Thanks for trying to salvage the page :) Back in September it was a nice article, now it's a promotional mess... Broc (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and likewise. There were a run of edits recently and they were too many for me to look at all at once. Hopefully we will get there! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly tempted to

WP:BOLD and revert back to that version, but I'll let it be for now. Thanks again for the efforts! Broc (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I won't revert if you do. It would be easier to fix that one than this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

You are the greatest. Thanks for your diplomacy early on and for your patience and willingness to help and teach a newbie. I have been studying and even learned wikitext. I'm currently having fun and learning new things while working on the Unreferenced Articles WikiProject. Thank you!

Kiwatts (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, Kiwatts, and thanks very much for the goat, who will no doubt enjoy eating my roses. I am very glad you are enjoying your time on Wikipedia, and great work so far. Thanks for persevering with it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of areas of London

Hi, you reverted an edit I had made, correctly I assume, to fix a harv no-target error. However, the error returned because a footnote points to Rasmussen 1988. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes. It became (Rasmussen, 1937) when another editor consulted their edition for the requested page number. I've fixed the in text citation now. Sorry for missing that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

County flags

Hello!

I just wanted to ask what your plan was with the whole county flags discussion. I know the topic can be a bit tiring, but now that there's some momentum I'm quite keen to try and find a resolution. The status quo is clearly not going to hold in the long-term, so we'd just be kicking the can to let the current discussion die out. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes, I can put together an RfC, but I am still not entirely clear what options we have consensus for. Should I base it on the 4 options? The wording might need tweaking too. I'll try to put together the candidate text. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to open a discussion about which flags we include in the encyclopedia before you open the RfC on infoboxes? As I said in the main discussion, I think it would be helpful to get that resolved before we open the RfC, as in my experience flag discussions tend to sprawl once they get going. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that will help keep the actual RfC discussion on point would be helpful, yes. Please go ahead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll get that worked up and aim to start it over the weekend. Let's say it runs for a week (which is possibly optimistic), that should give you time to prepare the RfC, which can run shortly after and be informed by the outcome of the first discussion.

I'm tempted to lay out the timeline at

WT:UKGEO, so everyone's informed of what's happening. I've a feeling this will either be one of the best-orchestrated series of discussions in Wikipedia history or absolute carnage, can't wait to find out which! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Best laid plans... my money will be on carnage! But good luck! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Meyer

You seem like a reasonable person. Could you read the latest discussion on Stephen C. Meyer’s talk page where we are discussing the opposite of what I am recommending for Ken Ham? While I think Ken Ham deserves the term “Pseudoscientist”, I think that Stephen Meyer deserves the opposite where he has been listed as such, and I think that people are emotionally involved there, and I need someone who can take a look without their emotion in the way.

FYI: it’s a long read 😳 Chrisallen87 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long read is right. I took a look. I don't like this in the lead: He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design. Not because I don't think ID is pseudoscientific. It is almost classically pseudoscientific, and the reason this is necessarily so comes down to the whole philosophy and epistemological basis of science. You can argue with the epistemology of science itself (c.f. Gordon Clark who argues against empiricism) but you can't say ID is scientific as science is defined. The reason I don't like that lead is because it is making an up front judgement in a lead that is supposed to be a summary. I'd think "He is an advocate of intelligent design" is sufficient, and especially as the wikilink takes the reader to a page that explains why ID is pseudoscientific. That would, in my view, read more neutrally. I suspect it would take a lot of work to remove the word though - the label "pseudoscientific" tends to engender long debates. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right

I dunno how I missed what it said on that article about Malkinson not being freed as he didn't confess lol. Cheers for correcting 82.18.162.80 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You might want to consider a couple of other templates rather than simply removing information in such circumstances. If you find a statement is not verified by the reference, try adding: {{Failed verification|date=March 2024|reason=Your reason}}. Where the source does verify but there are other problems with it, you can use {{Better source needed|reason=Your reason|date=March 2024}}. In general it is better to give editors a chance to deal with any issues identified rather than removing information that is likely to be correct. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is A Wider Lens. Thank you. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of

Where is Kate?

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Rain David Schoch

Hi Sirfurboy, I hope your day is well.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, having come here to provide greater knowledge to the world through my cache of source information on a narrow range of topics. I recognize that you are an experienced editor and ask your guidance on my "Latter Rain David Schoch" edit.

I understand that the cited non-fiction book is independently published, which is by-and-large frowned upon (and for good reason in many cases). However, please hear my argument for reverting to include this particular non-fiction book.

1) The non-fiction book referencing David Schoch and his church "Bethany Chapel" is a first-hand account of events from a currently living person who attended that church and interacted with David Schoch. It is a true story and identifies itself as such.

2) Wikipedia contains virtually no information on Latter Rain's David Schoch or his church Bethany Chapel.

3) I've uploaded source audio from David Schoch's Bethany Chapel church to YouTube, with further uploads in the works. The audio comes direct from Bethany Chapel (which hasn't existed in over 25 years). I possess audio cassettes from Bethany Chapel, complete with original labeling.

4) I've been cited in university-published scholarly research. I can provide further detail if that will sway you towards including my edit on David Schoch / Bethany Chapel, although I prefer remaining anonymous.

I ask that you consider these points and if you still disagree with reverting to include this non-fiction book as citation / bibliography, please let me know the best course of action to pass my knowledge of David Schoch / Bethany Chapel to Wikipedia and the world.

Thank you Sirfurboy and I look forward to your reply. APCMDG (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I completely understand where you are coming from, but I am sorry to say that I cannot support your proposed edit, which is fundamentally against what Wikipedia is. I have some suggestions for you below, but first, let me explain. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and thus it is a tertiary source. An encyclopaedia is not the place for publishing original research, and so a core policy here is

WP:SPS

.

But your aims are laudable. You want to make information available to the world. There are a couple of ways you can do this. If you actually have a cache of information that is unpublished and expertise on a subject, you might want to consider whether there is a valid historical project here. Perhaps even a doctoral thesis in some cases. You mention being quoted by historians. Talk to them about your ideas. The very best way you could make this information known to the world would be to have it published - whether by yourself or by someone else. Once published, of course, Wikipedia could cover it.

The second thing you could look at is Wikibooks. That might be a more appropriate wikiproject for what you propose.

I hope that is helpful. Happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sirfurboy, your reply is very helpful. Yes a doctoral thesis is where my previous work was cited (and a chapter was devoted to that work). Thank you again, I'll develop a correct plan for making this information available. APCMDG (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Monadic plane" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Monadic plane has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Monadic plane until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ty woki"

I guess that's some kind of Cornish insult, then?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is just calling someone an idiot. Back in the days when I was learning Cornish we had great fun calling people that. It's been years since I heard it, but it shows up in the learner books. Welsh equivalent is probably twpsyn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. I always prefer

the Cockney.... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

A few more helpful phrases...  Tewdar  19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - those are the one's you don't see so much in the learner books! 😜 Although I do seem to recall that we found a wonderful term for a urinal in the dictionary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah! Surely, you're just taking the piss.... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]